Tag:Deleted Data

1
Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)
2
In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)
3
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)
4
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)
5
McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)
6
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)
7
RKI, Inc. v. Grimes, 177 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
8
Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 773 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
9
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004)
10
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So.2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)

Key Insight: Although it concluded that default judgment against former general counsel was not warranted, court found that discovery misconduct of former general counsel and its attorneys bordered on obstruction and awarded trustee its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in pursuing all discovery in the proceeding

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy trustee sued debtor’s former general counsel for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems and electronic records

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

RKI, Inc. v. Grimes, 177 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

Key Insight: Court granted emergency motion to compel, requiring defendants to appear for deposition and produce computers for inspection by plaintiff’s computer forensics expert; at subsequent bench trial, in light of defendants’ deletion of data from computers after litigation commenced, repeated defragmentation of hard drives prior to court-ordered inspections, and decision not to offer any testimony to explain same, court drew adverse inference; court awarded plaintiff $100,000 as royalty for defendants’ unauthorized use of trade secrets, and $150,000 in punitive damages for the willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and attempted cover-up

Nature of Case: Manufacturer sued former employee and competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Software and databases containing sales and customer information

Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 773 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Key Insight: Court modified prior order directing defendants to produce contents of hard drives for in camera inspection; individual defendants now directed to produce hard copies of all emails relating to allegations against certain individual, including any deleted emails recovered by a qualified expert appointed by the referee supervising the discovery; only those emails that in fact deal with relevant allegations to be turned over to the plaintiff; plaintiff agreed to bear all costs related to recovery of data from hard drive

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination, negligent supervision and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and deleted email on hard drives of individual defendants

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for default judgment but granted motion for an adverse inference instruction and $20,000 in monetary sanctions where, in advance of court-ordered inspection, defendants deleted from their computers numerous electronic files which had been copied from former employer’s computer systems prior to their resignations, and, after the inspection, defendants failed to comply with court’s order that they delete all of plaintiffs’ files from their computers

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So.2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Key Insight: Order allowing plaintiff unrestricted access to defendant’s computer system quashed, because the order allowed plaintiff unrestricted access to defendant’s computer system, including all of his programs and directories, without protection for any privileged or confidential information and without safeguards or restrictions to minimize any potential harm to the computer system

Nature of Case: Breach of contract suit between former partners

Electronic Data Involved: Inspection of computer system to search for financial information

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.